[LAW-LIB:58385] Lawyer Howard Grief writes about his newly published book

From: Mazo Publishers (mazopublishers@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 03 2009 - 05:20:38 PST

  • Next message: Bliss, Heidi: "[LAW-LIB:58386] NASDAQ Staff Interpretive Letters"

    Lawyer Howard Grief writes about his newly published book
    "The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law - A
    Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land Of Israel"

    This book is the culmination of 25 years of serious study and analysis
    of Israel's legal foundation and rights to the Land of Israel under
    international law. My researches on this subject began in 1982 after I
    had met in New York with the late Dr. Paul Riebenfeld, a legal scholar
    on the subject of Transjordan, with whom I had subsequently, throughout
    the 1980s, many discussions on Israel's legal rights and status in
    regard to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Prior to my first meeting with Dr.
    Riebenfeld, I had followed intensely from my home city of Montreal the
    events unfolding in Israel ever since my teenage years when the Sinai
    War of 1956 was headline world news. Between 1956 and 1982, I had
    acquired a considerable store of knowledge of the politics, history and
    geography of Israel through voracious reading of newspapers and books
    and attending lectures, both at McGill University and in public forums.
    Some of the books I read that captured my interest on Israel were ones
    written by Leon Uris – "Exodus", Richard Meinertzhagen – "Middle East
    Diary", and Shmuel Katz – "Days of Fire", all of which made an indelible
    impression on me. Another book, not surprisingly, was the Hebrew Bible,
    the root and backbone of Judaism and the Jewish People. The stories of
    the Bible always fascinated and inspired me, ever since my days as a
    schoolchild. In 1980, I was asked to become the representative in Canada
    of the newly-formed Tehiya party of Israel, a task I gladly accepted. I
    then proceeded to form a group to represent it in the Canadian Zionist
    Federation, which had the distinction of being the first official branch
    outside Israel.
    As a practicing attorney in Montreal since 1966, it was natural for me,
    sooner or later, to interest myself in Israel's legal foundation and in
    the rights of the Jewish People to Palestine and the Land of Israel.
    This became a matter that required great attention after the Six-Day War
    of June 1967, since Israel's legal position in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the
    Golan and Sinai were topics of daily debate and acrimony. Israel was
    constantly being assailed in the 1970s, as it still is today, for its
    "occupation" of Arab territories, the implication being that it had no
    right to the territories it had repossessed or liberated from enemy
    occupation in the Six-Day War. To my sorrow, no satisfying legal
    rebuttal was forthcoming to offset this false accusation, even by
    committed advocates of Israel's cause. The best response offered was
    that either Israel had a better "claim" to these territories than did
    the surrounding Arab states, or that in any case everything would be
    eventually settled in future peace agreements and that in the meantime
    the status quo could continue. Not a single jurist ever voiced the
    opinion, with supporting evidence, that Israel, as the agent and
    assignee of the Jewish People, was the actual sovereign of Judea,
    Samaria and Gaza or that the Golan was really an historical part of the
    Land of Israel rather than of Syria illegally ceded to France in a 1922
    agreement that took effect the following year or finally that the Jewish
    People's long connection with Sinai dating back to the days of Moses, as
    confirmed in the Torah, gave Israel a right to retain Sinai, a territory
    which historically was never a part of Egypt except by virtue of
    conquest during various periods in history.
    In addition, the true importance of the Balfour Declaration of November
    2, 1917 as encapsulated in the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 was
    not understood or realized. In fact, no single book contained an
    organized and systematic presentation of Israel's legal rights to the
    entire Land of Israel, not just the area included in the State of
    Israel, but to all the land east and west of the Jordan, north and south
    of the Yarmuk, and, separately, to Sinai and the territory of what is
    today Southern Lebanon. The latter is geographically an extension of
    Upper Galilee, that historically was part of ancient Israel and
    therefore should have been included in the boundaries of Mandated
    Palestine, had it not been for French obstinacy and imperial designs. It
    was to rectify this glaring omission that I set myself the task of
    composing the present book. I devoted day and night to writing it from
    October 2001 to March 2003, and in the succeeding years made constant
    additions, revisions and updates to reach the point of publication. The
    book thus required seven years before it was ripe for publication.
    I had for more than a decade prior to writing this book prepared the
    ground for it by composing a series of articles and papers on legal
    questions affecting the Land of Israel. Many of these articles appeared
    in the Hebrew bi-monthly publication of Nativ, where I stressed the San
    Remo Resolution as the principal founding document of the State of
    Israel. My thesis was that the Jewish People were recognized under
    international law as the de jure sovereign over Mandated Palestine ever
    since the adoption of the San Remo Resolution. This view contrasted
    sharply with that of other jurists who propagated the theory that there
    existed a "sovereignty vacuum" for Judea, Samaria and Gaza or that these
    regions had the legal status of unallocated (or unallotted) territories
    of the Mandate for Palestine. At the time this view was propounded, it
    appeared to many to favour Israel's interest. However, it actually
    damaged Israel's legal case, since not only did it ignore the importance
    of the San Remo Resolution, which had created Palestine for the
    exclusive national benefit of the Jewish People, but also opened the
    door to the local Arab inhabitants of the Land of Israel to claim
    ownership of the so-called "unallocated territories" for themselves and
    thereby acquire national and political rights over them that they were
    never meant to have under the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for
    Palestine. I came to the conclusion that since all of Palestine had
    already been allocated to the Jewish People at the San Remo Peace
    Conference that issued the San Remo Resolution, the Arabs therefore had
    no national rights whatever to any part of the territory of formerly
    mandated Palestine under international law, though they, together with
    the other inhabitants of the country, naturally enjoyed civil and
    religious rights. It was in the mid-1980s that I began to formulate my
    view that de jure sovereignty had already been vested in the Jewish
    People over all of the Land of Israel dating from the 1920 San Remo
    Resolution and then devolved upon the State of Israel upon its
    re-establishment. I then explained this view to Dr. Paul Riebenfeld of
    New York. He advised me that no one had previously expressed this
    position. I also mentioned my view in an article I wrote in 1989,
    published in The Jewish Press of Brooklyn, New York, on "the Question of
    Sovereignty and Final Status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza" (August 4,
    1989, p.4). In that article I stated that at a meeting of the Supreme
    Council of the victorious Allied Powers at San Remo, Italy, on April 25,
    1920 "Palestine was specifically set aside and given to the Jewish
    People for the establishment of a National Home… The establishment of a
    Jewish homeland meant eventual statehood and hence the transfer to the
    Jewish People of sovereignty to all parts of the homeland including
    Judea, Samaria and Gaza".
    Over a year after I made aliya in August 1989, I was appointed by
    Professor Yuval Ne'eman, leader of the Tehiya party, then serving as
    Minister of Energy and Infrastructure in the Yitzhak Shamir Government,
    to be his legal adviser on Eretz-Israel. In January 1991, he asked me to
    prepare a paper for him on Israel's legal foundation and rights to the
    country, since he was scheduled to deliver a speech in a month's time on
    this subject at the Carnegie Foundation in the United States. I compiled
    a 93 page paper for this purpose. Professor Ne'eman not only accepted my
    thesis, he used what I wrote for him to very good advantage on his
    speaking tour before American audiences and followed this up with an
    article published in the journal Global Affairs (Fall 1992, Vol. VII,
    No. 4). In his article, he cited my work as the legal authority for his
    statement that "it is… at San Remo that the State of Israel draws its
    legal existence" and that "sovereignty over an area that would later be
    defined as the Palestine mandate was thereby bestowed on the Jewish People".
    The briefing paper I had authored for Professor Ne'eman became the
    impetus for the present book. However, I could not undertake this task
    immediately, because as a new oleh still new to the country, I had to
    seek employment in order to provide for my family. I was obliged to
    leave the Ministry of Energy when Tehiya lost its Knesset representation
    and Professor Ne'eman resigned his position as Minister even before the
    June 1992 elections and the Labour Party's assumption of power. With the
    signing of several accords between Israel and "Palestine Liberation"
    Organization, I felt compelled to challenge the legality of these
    accords in the Israel Supreme Court, and for that purpose I filed a
    total of five petitions or applications on behalf of distinguished
    Israeli citizens. The Court, however, always refused to hear these
    petitions on their merits, because of what it determined to be the
    political nature of the agreements made with the PLO, as if the question
    of the legality of such agreements was outside the scope of its
    jurisdiction, thus giving the Government of Israel a blank cheque to do
    whatever it desired, regardless of several existing Israeli laws that
    prohibited the ceding of territory to any foreign state whatsover, and
    by natural deduction to any lesser entity, particularly to a criminal
    and terrorist organization.
    Finally, in 2001, I started to compose the present book at the urging of
    my good friend, Mr. Yoel Lerner, an educator and linguist in Jerusalem,
    who recognized the importance of putting down in writing the legal
    knowledge I had gained over the years on the subject of Israel's legal
    rights to the Land of Israel. It was a proverbial "labour of love" from
    beginning to end. To present Israel's legal case I have relied on all
    the basic documents, agreements and acts formulated in the critical
    period between the years 1915-1925 that shaped the modern Middle East as
    it is today. As already indicated, the base document for the founding of
    Israel was the San Remo Resolution, as it was also for Syria and Iraq. I
    take pride in the fact that I have preached this point for the last two
    decades and that it has now become a widespread and accepted idea,
    directly attributable to myself as confirmed by Professor Yuval Ne'eman
    himself.
    I sincerely hope that this book will be used in the future as a teaching
    and educational tool to inform those who know little of the depth and
    strength of Israel's legal case for retaining in its possession the
    territories liberated in 1967 that still remain under its rule and even
    for the recovery – one day – of those territories already illegally
    given away. Arguments based on legal facts and evidence are needed to
    counter the enormous lies and mis-information put out by Israel's
    detractors, both at home and abroad, who urge the State "to end its
    occupation" of territories that rightfully belong to Israel. Such facts
    and evidence are provided in this book. The State of Israel is entitled
    to rule all the lands encompassing the Land of Israel with which it has
    incomparable historical, geographical, religious, economic and security
    links.
    A concise summary of the main points of this book has been published by
    the Ariel Center for Policy Research in its Policy Paper No. 147,
    entitled "Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to
    the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law" (ACPR
    Publishers, April 2003). To that source I refer interested readers who
    may wish to have a quick review of the main points of this book. I have
    also discussed the approach I have taken in presenting Israel's legal
    case, as compared to that of others, in two letters I sent to Professor
    Ne'eman in 2004, which are reprinted infra in Appendix III.
    Professor Ne'eman had originally intended to write his own introduction
    to the book, but his untimely decease in 2007 has made that impossible.
    However, the letter he wrote to a prospective publisher expressing his
    enthusiastic endorsement of the book is reproduced in that appendix as a
    substitute for the intended introduction. I have also included in
    Appendix IV a juridical assessment of the book composed by the late Dr.
    Ya'akov Meron, Professor of Moslem Law and Adviser on the Law of Arab
    Countries at the Ministry of Justice, who sadly passed away in the
    spring of 2008. He read this book in its entirety and characterized it
    as "a forceful and erudite pleading for the respecting of the letter and
    spirit of the law, not only Israeli law but also international law that
    came into existence in the wake of World War I". It is certainly a great
    honour to receive the support of such eminent figures as Professors
    Ne'eman and Meron for the book as now finally published.
    Finally, I have included in Appendix V the correspondence I had with the
    late Joel Carmichael, the celebrated long-time editor of Midstream, a
    monthly Jewish review based in New York. I had written to him concerning
    a article penned by one of his contributors. This article was based on
    my original thesis as stated above, that de jure sovereignty over all of
    Palestine had been vested in the Jewish People as a result of the
    decision taken at the San Remo Peace Conference to create the new
    mandated state of Palestine in accordance with the Balfour Declaration
    and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, though the
    writer of the article, having learned of this thesis directly from me,
    neglected to attribute it to me, nor was he authorized to make it public
    until I had done so in a systematic manner. Nevertheless he posted it on
    the internet, thus giving it widespread publicity. Mr. Carmichael
    accepted my analysis most eagerly, and in follow-up correspondence even
    requested that I submit an article for publication in Midstream, which
    he said he would publish as the leading article in a future issue.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Carmichael retired from his position as Editor of
    Midstream before the article was ready. The article, never published in
    its original format to this day, is included in Appendix V. The penning
    of the article marked the precipitate cause that set me on the path to
    the compilation of the present book, the idea and contents of which
    having been swirling around in my mind ever since I first presented my
    legal paper to Professor Ne'eman in 1991. The book is thus the final
    rendition of that long chain of thoughts.
    The comments I have received on my earlier writings on the subject, as
    expressed in various letters and articles, give me cause to hope that
    the book may prove in the long run to be of actual benefit to the Jewish
    People and the State of Israel in their on-going process of reclaiming
    and repossessing all of the Jewish National Home and the remaining parts
    of the Land of Israel*.

    *The Jewish National Home and Mandated Palestine were originally meant
    to be synonymous terms under international law, and were supposed to
    correspond to the historical or biblical frontiers of the Land of Israel
    in the First and Second Temple Periods. However, when the borders of
    Mandated Palestine were finally drawn in 1920 and 1922 by Britain and
    France, they illegally excluded various areas comprising the Land of
    Israel in the definition of Palestine, thus creating an unwarranted
    distinction between what became Palestine and what historically was the
    Land of Israel. Paradoxically, the distinction between Palestine and the
    historical Land of Israel was not reflected in the law of Palestine
    during the period of the Mandate, since the term used in Hebrew to
    designate the country was Eretz-Israel, even though certain historical
    parts of it were not included.

    "The Legal Foundation and Borders Of Israel Under International Law - A
    Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land Of Israel" is distributed
    by Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com and the publisher at www.mazopublishers.com

    Thank you.
    Howard Grief

    i



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 03 2009 - 05:22:41 PST